May 27, 2011

Says Andrew Sullivan. Thanks. He's saying I'm shrewder than Byron York, referring to this post, earlier today, which is up to 249 comments (on the Friday afternoon before the long holiday weekend.) Of course, the topic is Sarah Palin. Sullivan connects my post, which tweaked the "serious people," with something Rush Limbaugh said:

'The Inside the Beltway’ ruling class — the elite — they’re more oriented toward candidates they can attach the word ‘serious’ to — which is another way of saying someone who is boring, who doesn’t ruffle feathers, someone who exudes an air of formal education and sophistication — she doesn’t exude that, and I think it’s going to shake a lot of people up ... You know the effect that she has on establishment Republican people.

Later, Sullivan put up another post on the Sarah Palin/seriousness theme. Asking "Does this sound like someone not running?," he posted Palin's bus tour ad:

That video has a very church vibe, like the ones they produce about the youth missions trip or something. Except for the bear, which was hilarious.

However, another explanation is that she is promoting her own org, "One Nation", which could be some sort of Heritage foundation typeish rival that attempts to sway policy. I think that's what I would do in her situation.

It's self-promotion, to be sure; but wouldn't she prepare a video a lot like this if she's planning on leading the conservative movement, endorsing and speaking on behalf of conservative candidates, and, by the way, making a butt-load of money?

(Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

She has to maintain her relevancy, after all. And keeping alive the hope of her candidacy in the hearts of her supporters, right up until the last moment, is the best way to do that.

Frankly, unless gas goes up to $6 per gallon, or Ryan or Christie run, I wouldn't mind a Palin run. It's a Hail Mary, but it's a shot. If it's Pawlenty versus Obama, that's not much of a shot.

I sincerely doubt Palin is going to run. If she were, she'd be streetwalking in Iowa instead of touring the northeast corridor, and then other regions, in a bus. Presidential aspirants focus on influential primary states first, then start a bus tour elsewhere.

She's realized her true calling is as a motivational speaker and news-maker. For God's sake, this is a woman who made the news recently because she noticeably wasn't in the news! "Is Palin's Influence Waning?" etc.

Dude, get serious. There's a poll out today that has Rudy Guiliani as the leading Republican presidential candidate. The other day, it was Donald Trump. These polls mean nothing.

In fact, they are good for one thing: predicting who will not be the nominee. To whatever exact extent that you are relying on any publicly-released polling at this point in the process, that's the extent to which you don't know what you are talking about.

I do fear that Palin could get the Republican nomination, by the way. But she'll never win. And if she did, what a disappointment she'd be to all you people who are imputing to her empty vessel your hopes and dreams. Just like...

Whoever the Republicans run, there will be a solid 45% voting for the Republican; and similarly there will be a solid 45% voting for Obama.

The battle is for the mush-minded nincompoops who say things like "I don't vote fer the party, I vote fer the man." People who care more about who wins American Idol than they do who wins the presidency.

That's how we ended up with a novelty President in Obama: He was the more entertaining choice. Voting for him made them feel good, he was the underdog, it was a first, he looked good in a suit; he was young and captured their imaginations.

I just don't see Pawlenty beating Obama in American Idol. Palin? She couldn't beat him in Jeopardy (nor could Reagan have beaten Carter in Jeopardy), but she has a shot with the American Idol crowd.

I sincerely doubt Palin is going to run. If she were, she'd be streetwalking in Iowa instead of touring the northeast corridor, and then other regions, in a bus. Presidential aspirants focus on influential primary states first, then start a bus tour elsewhere.

Also, by touring the northeast corridor, she tours in an area that's convenient for the mainstream media to follow her around and report her every move. While it's possible this is a prelude to a Presidential run, it's also a good way to keep yourself a hot media property, so as to keep bringing in the money. Until she starts doing more straightforward fundraising and campaigning in the early caucus/primary states, I'm betting it's the latter plan.

Also, while it's good to be unconventional in lots of circumstances, I'm not sure it's the best thing to do in politics. For example, for all the talk about how Obama broke new ground in 2008, his march to the White House started in the most traditional manner - by organizing Iowa caucus voters and winning the first caucus.

Seven, of the 16% of the electorate out of a job, again, 45% of them are hardcore Democrats and 45% are hardcore Republicans. That leaves 1.6% of the electorate that's out of a job, who might decide to vote against Obama because of it. Of course, the media will convince them that it's not Obama's fault that they lost their job; and some of them might actually vote for Obama because they're unemployed, and they want to maintain those precarious entitlements you mentioned. That's not enough to swing it to Pawlenty.

Now $6 per gallon gas, that hits everyone. That would do it. Short of that, I just don't see Mr. Excitement beating Obama.

I don't think you need charisma to beat Obama in this election, in this economic climate. You have to be competent and palatable enough to feel like a sound & viable choice to the majority of people (including many 2008 Obama voters) yearning & eager to vote for someone other than Obama. I don't know Pawlenty that well, but right now, I'll take Pawlenty over Palin.

Also, by touring the northeast corridor, she tours in an area that's convenient for the mainstream media to follow her around and report her every move.

They do that regardless of convenience. They followed her to rural Arizona to take snapshots of what may or may not be her house!

And maybe you have a point paralleling it to Obama. His strategy actually wasn't traditional. Yes, he won the first caucus, but his real victory came from winning all the little states that are normally ignored. He was all over the place making vacuous speeches. Maybe that's Palin's plan, too?

Like Obama, she has never done anything of substance except give an ostensibly rousing speech at a convention.

The sad thing is, she had the makings of an awesome resume to me, worked her way up the political ladder all the way from the school board to the governors mansion but without "two term sitting governor" tacked onto the end there it's kind of useless. Which is why I don't like her quitting her job, not because it makes me think of her as a "quitter" but becuase it blows the resume. If she doesn't want to be President, that's totally fine. But if she does I'm not happy with it.

As for Pawlenty, I'm tentatively leaning that way but I don't know him well enough to declare. We're still a long way out. That european pub crawl thing was funny, though.

Still, that grizzly bear part of the video was awesome. I've watched it like 10 times.

Obama couldn't even drub McCain, dude, and Obama trailed McCain until McCain imploded when the economy imploded. Obama is plenty beatable but not by a novelty candidate like Palin or Trump.

By the way, given that Republicans have won seven out of the last 11 elections, and given the considerable waning of the media-industrial complex as any kind of united entity, your complaints that the "media" will trick people into voting against their interests are quite silly.

"Like Obama, she has never done anything of substance except give an ostensibly rousing speech at a convention."

Yes, exactly like Obama. That guy that won the last presidential election.

So I guess this is your argument that she shouldn't be elected, not that she couldn't be elected.

If you list every horrible thing that Obama has done since he's been in office, Palin would have done the opposite. Every awful judicial nomination, Palin would have nominated the polar opposite of that nominee.

Re Seven's comment comparing Palin and Obama, she did show she can work across party lines to raise taxes and she fought corruption in her own party. At least one of those is more that President Obama of Chicago can claim.

"...if having a president who would do things different from what Obama did is your standard, any Republican should be acceptable."

Jon Huntsman?

And for that matter, anyone to the left of Thune is pretty much disqualified for me. If you want to be disappointed, and you're a conservative, then nominate a moderate, like Bush. Or Pawlenty. They won't aggressively address the debt spiral, and when everything comes tumbling down in a shamble in 6 or 8 years, the Republicans will own it -- even though most of the damage has been done in the last two years.

Pasta -- I hate to break it to you, but the debt was in its best condition with a Republican Congress and a moderate Democrat as president.

Moreover, what makes you think that a candidate, Palin, who ran a state completely dependent on federal aid will tame the budget deficit?

Palin is an empty vessel. She stands for what you stand for because you have deemed her as supportive of your positions. In reality, her positions are either opaque, nonexistent, or unserious much of the time.

Palin is great at two things: self-branding, and creating a positive brand aura. Just like...

Bold, bright colors, Seven. Not pastels. There are historical parallels here -- Obama is Carter II, and we need Reagan.

Reagan wasn't a middle-of-the-road technocrat or a lifetime politician. He wasn't an intellectual, either.

And yet, somehow, he managed to be a pretty decent president. Must have been all that experience, governing California. Because that really prepared him to deal with Gorbachev. The population is so much more dense there than it is in Alaska, after all.

Reagan accomplished a lot more than Palin before he was elected to the presidency. But. He was just like Palin, portrayed by the press as too conservative and a dunce. Also, he had been out of office for half a decade by then.

I think Reagan's victory over Carter was only half, or less, due to anything Reagan said or did. He wasn't Carter and that was enough. With the way things are going, it may be enough to just be not-Obama.

Oh, I see, Seven. You're one of those Republicans (life-long, no doubt) who thinks we'd be better off with a Democrat POTUS.

What's the term Limbaugh uses for that sort of Republican? Seminar caller, I think?

I won't bother to point out the fact that the explosive economy of the 90s with the tech and dot-com bubbles had nothing at all to do with anything Clinton did; or that it had more to do with a peace dividend from Reagan ending the cold war victorious. Republicans like you would find that unconvincing.

How foolish of me to want to see a POTUS whose policy positions coincide with my own. When I should focus on how impressive their credentials are. Hmmm.

You keep using this "empty vessel" phrase; I don't know where you're getting this. This isn't honest. Palin has been more forthright with her positions than most politicians -- that's why she's such a lightning rod for the left.

He was portrayed by the press as an intellectual. (He actually is, the guy's brilliant.) But they didn't portray him as such out of honesty; they portrayed him as such because he's 5 foot 4 inches tall, and bald.

And would have been crushed in the general election for those two reasons. "I just don't like that guy, I can't put my finger on it," the American Idol fans would say, as they pull the lever for 6 foot 2 Obama.

For the mainstream media, any flaw that makes a Republican unelectable immediately elevates them to "serious candidate."

Excitable Andy is irrelevant. He knows it and hates it, so he blows smoke up the appropriate butts to drive traffic, so that he can later ironically turn on those whose asses he kissed, but I digress.

Sarah Palin is shrewd. She's driving her tour bus. None of this exploratory comittee bullshit for her. She'll play coy king maker until the numbers turn her way, and if they don't, c'est la vie. She's stoking her Tea party base in the home of the original Tea Partiers. Chris Christie may have them at least looking back over their right shoulders--or not.

Grizzly Mom has the DNC shitting themselves, so she goes into the belly of the beast.

If Palin wins it will be because she has a punchers chance. The judges are fixed so we can't go to the scorecard. She will take the fight to Obama when most of the rest of the Rhino wimps will want to play by the "Marquis of Queensbury" rules.

She will take the fight to Obama when most of the rest of the Rhino wimps will want to play by the "Marquis of Queensbury" rules.

You give them too much credit...remember McCain explaining we had NOTHING to fear from an Obama Presidency...they'll spend a goodly portion of their time complimenting Obama on his abilities and accomplishments, because they won't want to attack the Black Guy and be Negative...and they'll try to not lose their “Serious Cred” with the NYT/LAT...all the while being punched, kicked and leaked on by everyone, from Obama to the lowly beat reporter.

Alex -- I'm telling you that Palin cannot win a general election for president at this point in her career. It's simply not going to happen. Spouting about the perfect and the good is not going to change this fact.

The candidate that is fearless and willing to mock Obama is the one that will make his brittle facade crumble, and his inner jerk will come shining through. No one likes a jerk, especially one who doesn't mind us paying $4 or more per gallon for gas, with no job.

He has been bumbling and stumbling through England, where some of the press have awakened from the Kool-Aid coma. They now see that he speaks at length about nothing, and cannot handle an actual question at a press conference.

A major difference between Palin and Obama is that Ms. Sarah has done it all herself (not counting Todd) and she actually accomplished something as an executive, even if it was only up there in "Seward's Icebox," whereas Obama always have been carried by someone else and has mostly just voted "present" on other legislators' bills.

it's about electability... and it's about playing a game where the refs have picked sides.

When the media campaigns for one side, the other side's record and ability matter less. The media will create the GOP candidate that they want people to see, not the one that exists. It sucks, but that's the election we're gonna have.

I would like the next male president to have some facial hair. Herman Cain seems our only hope for that, it seems.

Well we ran on “electability” in 2008...and that got us so much...again the Gop, the “Too Clever by Half” Party. GOP'ers are like a team in the 1st quarter thinking about what the end of the 4th quarter will look like...one play, one down at a time.

If Palin wins the nomination we'll worry about November later..stop worrying about November 2012 in MAY 2011! Vote for who you like, NEXT SPRING...until let's skip all the “Bob can't be elected”

I'm open-minded beyond Pawlenty. Someone without a flimsy resume. Someone who didn't quit their job as governor in the middle of a term.

You know what Seven? I have often agreed with you on some issues and have been tolerant on others because everyone is entitled to have differing opinions when they are rationally thought out and fairly presented.

Now I can say...kindly and sincerly....fuck off. You have no idea what people think and I am now convinced you are nothing less than a "concern troll" who wants to subvert the conversation and carrying water for the DNC.

"One nation (or several, if one seems threatening to you, or imperialistic or racist or something) Under God (but not a state sanctioned god, really any god you please or none at all, ok?) with liberty and justice (and equal rights and pay and equal freedom and no sexism or any bad thing, which we still have far too much of in this country) for ALL (Everyone, especially immigrants whether they are legal or not, though The Rich have too much power and need to pay lots more taxes.)

The Bush Family, Inc. has been pushing for the surest loser candidate in 2012 to open the White House doors for Bush III in 2016. Their candidates to throw the election are the sure losers Daniels and Pawlenty. The Bush family's nightmare is the likely winner for two terms who is wearing the red running trunks ...The Alaskan Grizzlie...Saaaarah Palin.

1)Well then you MIGHT have said, Yes I KNOW she's 35 and a Natural Born Citizen....2)As to the rest, she has the “qualifications” IF she gets elected, JUST LIKE OBAMA. Meaning she gets 270 Electoral Votes.

Palin is not going to win and, like Obama, she doesn't have the qualifications to be president.

Your sad fury isn't going to change that.

Perhaps.

Most of the people running now brought us to this dance of death. I don't want any of the regulars who may have the "qualifications" that you seem to think are so wonderful. Just look at what these "qualified" people have brought us. I big heaping plate of destruction.

We don't have to give up, play nicey nice with the enemy and lay down with the tapioca, white bread, pablum candidates that YOU and the MSM want to foist upon us. Those are ALSO sure bang fuck up losers.

They may be politically correct. They may be playing by the rules. I say FUCK the rules and either go balls to the wall to win or go down fighting.

If we lose this election and Obama is in for another 4 years we are totally ruined as a country.

I would rahter stick to my principles and lose big time than to go namby pamby and still be guaranteed lose with the dregs that they are offering us now.

A Beltway outsider automatically gets 5-10% points in the 2012 election. Americans are waking up to a system where the WH can lie that auto companies have repaid their bailout money and the media plays along with the fraud.

The smart outsider candidate will politely decline all interview invites from the MSM. We are in a war and dickheads like Bob Schiefer, David Gregory and Sullivan etc are the enemy.

The feelings that Palin MUST be a gold digger and entertainer out for celebrity money (after all she is a woman ) will go away when she starts the campaign, wins the nomination and unloads daily on the socialists. She will bring with her a secret weapon to the media fight... her media words that thrill her supporters souls until they all turn out for her on election day out of loyalty. Obama and his wholly owned CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC and MSNBC can't touch that.

So now Sarah Palin-- Sarah Palin-- is the GOP's & USA's *only* hope and the only person (some of) you would vote for, even at the cost of 4 more years of Obama? (May I remind you, just to pick one consequence, 4 more years of Obama means a 99.99% probability that Obamacare becomes a permanent, irreversible part of our nation's fabric.) Really? Really?

The more cultlike people's advocacy for Palin becomes, the less I like her. Gotta say, her stock's plummeting with me here. And that commercial sure doesn't help.

Feller -- I know, man. It's hard. I just don't get the cult of personality. It's identical with what was going on with Obama before it became obvious that he wasn't "sort of God" after all. It's weird.

The difference is, Palin can't win the general election. It just isn't electorally possible.

Seven...The Constitution requires the President to be a person. Persons have skills called leadership. So having a person leading a Conservative election campaign is not therefore a Cult of Personality. Declaring that a woman that has political supporters must be a cult sounds to me like the Good Old Boy cult is getting jealous of losing some privileges.

Trad -- It's interesting that you say that, particularly in light of something you said earlier in this thread:

She will bring with her a secret weapon to the media fight... her media words that thrill her supporters souls until they all turn out for her on election day out of loyalty. Obama and his wholly owned CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC and MSNBC can't touch that.

Knowing a few things about cults, I'd say you're reaching here. I definitely ain't part of no cult of personality, or any other kind - I want as conservative and she's the only real one around, simple as that.

The only thing that makes Palin unelectable is you repeating she's unelectable.

I don't think it means she's running but I do think she wants to impact the discussion. I had been impressed by Mitch Daniels till his statement saying he wasn't running. He loved his country but he loved his family more? How crass. I have friends whose sons gave their lives for their country. I was shocked by his statement.

Crack -- What makes the Cult of Palin cultish is this belief that this highly charismatic person, Palin, will bring about vast changes in society through sheer force of will.

Nothing works that way.

It's not going to happen. Palin isn't going to get elected. If she does get elected, you and all the other people who have been sucked in by her charismatic charm are going to be tremendously disappointed.

I like Palin but I want a Prez who has the balls to say "that is not the govt's role". That is six simple words but Palin never stops talking and just goes on and on long after her winning soundbite or nugget of wisdom is forgotten.

She is like Obama who never stops talkking and making stuff up.

In grade school, the nuns used to say an empty can makes the most noise.

No one but Sarah has been out fighting for conservative ideas in the public arena. I wish others would, but they haven't. Rick Perry keeps coming up as a potential savior--he's wussified too, just with some vestiges of machismo. The Republican field stinks. We need radical surgery to have any hope of recovery, and all our candidates are chiropractors.

Crack -- What makes the Cult of Palin cultish is this belief that this highly charismatic person, Palin, will bring about vast changes in society through sheer force of will.

Nothing works that way.

Dude, stop it. Nobody's expecting her to change the world - or make our car payments - but merely to make decisions from a conservative, pro-American, perspective. The rest is in your head, which you ought to consider:

You are the one deciding you know what we think - without engaging with what we're telling you.

It's not going to happen. Palin isn't going to get elected. If she does get elected, you and all the other people who have been sucked in by her charismatic charm are going to be tremendously disappointed.

Yes, it will. There are more people who want a real conservative than you can imagine, is all.

And, again, we're not Obama voters but the same level-headed group of folks you talk to, here, everyday. I know the movie that's showing in your mind - the one we saw in the last election - and that's just not us. I was awe-struck, depressed, and sickened by what I saw:

Seven...American voters will support people who go out and take risks for them. We do not sit on the fence when we see that happening. That is Palin's appeal. She does not change her mind every few months with the shifting winds. She takes an intelligent position and stands for it against all comers. There is no personality cult behind that, unless you see her showing courage as a trick to make herself rich as a television celebrity like the fickle Newt Gingrich. Another strong personality that out charms Palin with voters is Herman Cain. I can personally attest that Cain is the real deal. So don't bother to fear his strong personality or Palin's either.

And you base that on, what, polling data? It's useless. The media hates her and fears her and has been doing insane things like blaming her for assassins. Of course oblivious sheep are going to be afraid of her. They've been lied to. Get a grip, clueless. And reflect about how unelectable Reagan was, how crazy and disoriented he was, how senile he was, Bedtime for Bonzo, and he and Carter are neck and neck, and blah blah blah.

Your polling data is horseshit. Nominate the best candidate, period. If you like Pawlenty or Romney or whoever, than support that candidate. You have no clue how the millions of Americans will vote in 18 months, so, seriously, shut up about it.

Fen -- Funny you should say that. I had written in a post above that I would vote for Palin if she is the nominee because I certainly won't vote for Obama or waste my vote on some third party. I deleted that portion.

A vote for Palin would be a wasted vote. It'll be like a vote for McCain. She's not going to win.

Obama has never had to face a serious competitor (except Hillary and he beat Hillary by out-dueling her in caucuses; Hillary won more actual Democratic votes). It would be sad if Republicans put up Palin and let that steak continue.

I respect you - always have - but you're making this up for yourself. I don't see Sarah Palin's charisma as you do. I've heard her speak and thought, "My Gawd, that was convoluted" but, like Bush, I understood what she meant and agreed with it.

Bush is a perfect example of what I mean:

I didn't "get" him until I saw a human being - not a "Bush", or a politician, or a conservative.

Sarah Palin is a person of character and, as Tg said, courage. And we're responding to that - we want to see more of that. We want kids to see that. We want the world to see that - from us. It's supposed to be who we are as Americans ("Land of the free,..") and we want it back.

Your polling data is horseshit. Nominate the best candidate, period. If you like Pawlenty or Romney or whoever, than support that candidate. You have no clue how the millions of Americans will vote in 18 months, so, seriously, shut up about it.

This post is hilarious in so many ways.

I have no polling data. It is my belief that Palin would lose the general election in a landslide. You have no polling data, either.

Further, Palin in not the best candidate. This thread is about Palin. Thus, you and I are talking primarily about her.

The best part is the last part -- about Pawlenty, Romney, etc. You suggest that I have no clue how millions will vote. Do you have such a clue? My suspicion is that you don't. Therefore, it's pretty patently fascist for you to suggest that I should have to shut up while you spout forth.

I have no doubt - none - that this will be a fight. And I'm talking about a balls-to-the-wall, drag out, fuck you and your mother-type tussle, but, if that's what it's going to take, then so be it.

As the saying goes, we won't be fooled again.

And, as far as her policies are concerned, I think "conservative values" pretty much sums it up. It's like that other thread, where Democrats and Republicans think 20% or more of the country is gay - and so insist we be battered, day in and day out, with that influence in our education, entertainment, social values, etc. - when it's all based on an illusion that they're benefiting this huge important block that doesn't exist.

Sarah Palin ain't going there - and we know it - and, while we won't stand for attacking gays, we will not tolerate living under that delusion any longer. It's got to stop. And it will stop. And we will make it stop.

Seven...You are correct about me being the responsive one to a leaders personality. It brings to mind what happened in the ninth week of the struggle with the Japanese empire for control of an airfield in the Solomon Islands. Until then the Marines had been intentionally abandoned by the US Navy which did not want to lose any more ships in a losing operation. Then the Old Cult of Personality surfaced and the Sailors and the Marines cheered for an hour when they heard that William Halsey had been put into command. Over the next 8 weeks Halsey's Navy shot the Japanese cruisers and battleships to hell in 4 costly night actions. In the end the Marines had lost 3000 dead in 4 months on Guadalcanal, but the Navy had lost 6000 dead after Halsey's cult of personality took command. But the mighty Japanese Army and Navy had been destroyed. Halsey's personality came to be called Bull instead of Bill after that. Halsey's second in command was John McCain. Those two were not as skilled as they were determined warriors. But in a war men can follow the lead of determined warriors and add skills from others...but no amount of skills can ever make up for being lead by an already defeated non-leader type.

I remember the Democrats' confidence that any candidate would beat Bush in 2004. I don't recall any pre-primary bitching that any particular candidate was sure to lose the election.

As Democrats announced their intention to run, I recall that there were those who hoped for a stronger candidate to emerge, but it wasn't coupled with the notion that the announced candidates were terrible. People were just looking for that supercandidate who they could rally around.

Remember the excitement that built up around the idea of Wesley Clark running? Looked great on paper, but it turned out he was a lousy candidate.

So, Saint Croix, your basis for supporting Palin is that you like Palin. Also that she is...

the closest we have to a libertarian in the race.

I feel compelled to mention that Alaska is the most federally dependent state. This does not fit in well with your libertarian scheme. Leaving that aside, I also note that libertarians do not traditionally do well in presidential races.

My basis for not supporting Palin is that I believe she will be walloped in the general election by Obama. I would never ask anyone as strident as you to believe me, even if what I am saying happens to be completely true. Why bother?

I hope Palin doesn't run but stays involved so she can boost a less polarizing candidate, like Pawlenty, who is conservative but not yet hated and feared by millions.

I find it interesting that some of you seriously DON'T want to scare millions, because I do. I want liberals on the next election night to feel the same dread I justifiably did during the last one. I want them to know the whole liberal, NewAge, mamby-pamby, what-will-the-world-think, let's worry about appearances, and flirt with socialism nonsense IS OVER.

This idea we're not fighting for something beyond good vibes - but something that matters - is about as wrong-headed as it gets. Politics is war by another means.

I went to visit my old boss in 2004 in New York City. He's a serious Democrat -- one of these fellows who hosts fundraisers and pays those ungodly rates at dinners and such. At that time, he was big on the Wesley Clark bandwagon and very adamantly against Howard Dean.

I, a Republican, told him that Clark was a terrible candidate. I'm mouthy like that. I also said that I would have liked to see Dean vs. Bush because it would represent a unique and actually interesting choice. But then...

I am open to being corrected, of course. I'm relying on memory -- and these events happened 8 years ago, and I haven't thought about them much since.

I'm just feeling a different vibe from conservatives than I remember feeling from liberals in 2003.

If I recall correctly, Michael Moore was one of those promoting Wesley Clark. As I recall it, Moore didn't come out and say the rest of the candidates would certainly lose to Bush; he just said that Clark was a better candidate.

You have some silly we're-going-to-be-united bullshit in your delusional heads. Well, get rid of it. This is a cultural battle for the soul of the country - one the liberal, NewAge, mamby-pamby, what-will-the-world-think, let's worry about appearances, and flirt with socialism crowd has been winning. That's what this is about.

Let's take an average voter who thinks that Obama is incompetent and has poor judgment about 95% of the time. (He maintains an open mind on his intelligence: This year is really "2008", not 2011; there are "56 states" and there are many "corpse-men" serving in the Navy.)

This average voter also thinks Palin has much to learn but has good judgment more often than not. Who is this person likely to vote for?

Oprah and Reagan combined on her mediocre days, Palin will redefine America as none before her within the last two hundred years have attempted, much less planned, prosecuted, and paraded the facts about proudly, after having accomplished.

You have some silly we're-going-to-be-united bullshit in your delusional heads. Well, get rid of it. This is a cultural battle for the soul of the country - one the liberal, NewAge, mamby-pamby, what-will-the-world-think, let's worry about appearances, and flirt with socialism crowd has been winning. That's what this is about.

Crack, Obama is not New Age nor mamby-pamby. On domestic issues he is a brutal fighter, far closer to Nixon in temperament than any Republican. He has an enemies list and he's checking it twice.

Aside from the awfulness of socialized medicine, imagine a political demon like Obama running it. This is a guy who wants information from any business that is contracting with the federal government. He is using the IRS to go after political foes.

Obamacare is not just a socialist hellhole, but potentially a move into a really ugly fascism in American politics.

Imagine people who deny you medical care because of how you think or what you said or how you voted. I have real fears that's the Obama mindset.

He wants to control who gets health care and he wants to punish his enemies.

What I love about Palin is that she's more than just a fighter. Lots of would-be candidates are fighters. Cain is a fighter. Bachmann is a fighter. Palin is a fighter but she manages to keep it light, happy, and optimistic. This puts her in the rare category of leader, like FDR or Ronald Reagan.

I think it's vital that the Republicans nominate a candidate who is nice and likable and a happy person. And this is because I think we have some real brutal, hard times ahead of us. So we need a fighter, yes, but also a likable person.

Palenty, Romney, and Huntsman are likable, but are not fighters.

Cain, Newt and Bachmann are all fighters, but none are likable. (None of them are funny, for instance).

Palin is a rock star. She's a better Reagan than Reagan. "You need to fight like a girl." She's awesome.

So if Congress is full of liberals and they pass no budget and they are intent on increasing our debt until we're on the verge of bankruptcy, how smooth do you want that ride to be?

Not to keep picking on you, Seven, but "ability to get along with liberals" is not the defining characteristic of any decent President in this environment.

If Congress is filled with Republicans, than sure, it's a smooth ride for the Republican in the White House. (Duh). But what if Congress is filled with liberals? Do you really want some dumb ass RINO who wants to make things smooth and happy and is cutting irresponsible deals? The last 2 years of the Bush presidency was like that. You want to do the math on his Medicare "fix" or is it too bumpy for you?

You gotta deal with political reality, dude. The other side isn't going to roll over and they are just as smart as you are and just as convinced they are right as you are. Thus, negotiation, compromise, and the slow and organic change that defines conservatism as it was espoused and as it is has been properly understood for generations.

Obama has lost the libertarians, mostly, he's fubar'd the economy, so alot of people who saw their hopes and dreams in him won't be voting for him again. He's screwed over Israel, and is losing votes as a result, he won't have the 'voted for him because he's black' vote again, been there done that, he's betrayed the anti-war voters, who now look like craven partisans with no scruples as they bend into pretzels to excuse him - I'm not seeing him holding 45%.

And face it - a pet rock will do a better job than Mr. Party all the time, travel on our dime, apology tour Annenberg Challenge President.

EVERY SINGLE Republican Candidate will do a better job than this incompetent got-in-by-unsealin-private-divorce-records Chicago thug.

Too bad for Soros - if Obama wasn't a vote "present" kind of a guy, he coulda been even more damaging than he is.

The republicans have all the new energy, all the new ideas, all the will power to make the necessary cuts, and the moral convictions that make all the difference. Don't get beat down by the head in the and do nothing "progressives" - they have set us back 20 years, maybe worse.

Second hint: His head is carved in between Jefferson and Lincoln. Talk about a cult of personality. He mastered staged photo ops when he wasn't attacking Wall Street power, starting the conservation movement and helping to take Spain's Empire.

I heard Rush say on the radio that every "serious" Presidential candidate needs his own plan to save Medicare. He might have been joking (it's hard to tell sometimes). But he was talking about Pawlenty, who has his own "plan" to save Medicare. The reason Rush was talking about this is because Pawlenty was asked if he supported the Ryan plan. And Pawlenty hedged. It was like this. "I have my own plan to save Medicare, but if Congress doesn't vote for it, then of course I would sign off on the Ryan plan."

Sarah Palin, meanwhile, just signs off on the Ryan plan. (She did it early, I think before there was any vote on it in the House).

To me that's effective leadership. After all, it's not actually the President's job to write legislation. And all the Republicans in Congress have unified behind Ryan's plan.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have slandered Ryan and his plan horribly, running ads with him pushing grandmothers off of cliffs.

So it's a fight.

And instead of fighting this fight, Pawlenty is spending his time crafting his own Medicare fix? What a waste of time. And instead of defending Ryan's plan and fighting for it, he equivocates. "I have my own plan." Just in case, you know, the libs succeed in making Ryan look like an evil Scrooge.

I have not read the Ryan plan, nor the Pawlenty plan. I don't actually give a damn which Republican plan is adapted, as long as it's free-market in its approach.

To me it's a question of leadership, and willingness to fight when the fight's important.

Pawlenty wasted valuable time and resources to craft his own plan to save Medicare. Why? What's wrong with Ryan's plan? Are the Republicans who are responsible for drafting legislation incompetent in their jobs, Governor?

I get the feeling that Pawlenty wrote his own "fix" because he wants to appear serious and important. "I, Tim Pawlenty, will save Medicare, with my plan." Sarah Palin, meanwhile, jumped on the Ryan bandwagon early and gave her full support to the efforts in the House.

Now, and think about this, which is a stronger leadership style? Who ia building a coalition, and willing to make public commitments?

As you think about "coalition-building," you ought to reflect on all the hard work Sarah Palin did to get Republicans elected in 2010, including in Iowa and South Carolina. She made some gutsy, independent calls, and she did it early, which seems to be her trademark.

Saint Croix, I'm with you regarding what's at stake-- that is what a second term of Obama portends. It's a horrifying prospect.

But at this point in time (granted, early yet), given what Palin has so far provided for me to evaluate her on, I'm with Seven in just not seeing her as "the one"-- not just because she seems "unelectable," but because I personally don't see her as the person best suited for the extremely difficult & complex presidential job ahead. But then, I don't have that much material to judge her on (one of the problems with her curtailed time in office), other than e.g. her knack for twitting catchphrases & posting stuff on Facebook that happens to ring a bell for me… So do many of the witty insightful commenters here, every day; maybe one of them should run for president.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to diminish her-- she's been powerful, savvy, effective, and in the vanguard in her valuable work to get others (especially Tea Partiers) elected. That means she's a great talent & political force with some great instincts as "kingmaker," but that still doesn't tell me much about how she'd fare as President.

By the way, Palin's daughter, who competed in Dancing With the Stars, is now apparently going to star in her own reality TV show. So Palin's family-- and by extension, Palin herself-- has been, is, & will be viewed and evaluated by the American people alongside the likes of the Kardashians & the Housewives. I mean, come on-- I love Trooper York & I myself enjoy my share of reality TV, but you think this helps the American people to see Palin as a possible President of the United States of America?

In any case, look, I haven't yet seen Palin run for president-- if she runs, I'll see how she fares in that big ring, speaking and acting for herself (not beholden to or fettered by McCain). Maybe that'll change my mind.

PS my view of "electability" is not the MSM's; the last thing we need is another McCain (e.g. Huntsman).

We need a conservative warrior who'll aggressively, unapologetically go on the offense, speak the unvarnished truth about Obama, his policies, and the state of the union. But there's more than one way to do this (not just Palin-style snark & slogans). An unflashy, unsexy, unprepossessing man who modulates his rhetoric can still pack a punch with his words, as long as he persuades people that he's speaking honestly and Obama is not.

Yashu, one of the reasons I love Palin so much is that she is willing to take on corruption in her own party. The Republican party in Alaska was very corrupt. She was a citizen who really just climbed the ladder, from PTA to mayor to governor. She did things like putting the governor's plane for sale on ebay. That's symbolic and highly effective. (Contrast the Obama love of all the perks of the royal lifestyle). I like how Todd is going to be "First Dude."

I love, love, love how down-to-earth Palin is, how she wore that T-shirt in college, ("At least I'm not flat-busted"). I love her fighting spirit, her sense of humor, her sharp sense of political skills, her large family and her total commitment to pro-life values.

She's the least elitist person running for the Presidency, by far. And I do not think that marks her as inferior at all. It marks her as honest and straight-forward. What you see is what you get. I appreciate that.

I look forward to her low-key citizen campaign, one that skimps on $10,000-a-plate dinners and relies on internet contributions from ordinary Americans.

I can't wait for her to shock the professional political class when she runs (and wins) with her small, independent campaign. No handlers, no insiders. Wouldn't surprise me at all if Todd was her campaign manager. Why not?

I expect her to do "unprofessional" stuff like that. As if she was just an ordinary citizen, and running for President is not that big a deal.

I expect Sarah Palin to craft her own message, and avoid all the handlers and political advisors and the rest of the insider Washington stuff.

If elected, I expect her to truly revolutionize our federal government, and shrink it back down in size. I can't wait to see what she tries to sell on ebay. Awesome!

too early to know anything--spring/summer of 2012--I dont see a dem challenger to Obama for whatever reason, but that would change the dynamic considerably--

My preferred outcome would be a cloture proof senate and republican house, both of which look possible right now--then it wont make any difference if jug ears wins again

Finally--a whole lot can happen in a year--while these comments are interesting in terms of personal preferences, we are talking about a comment board as our sample population--there is this thing called the electorate--a lot bigger and a lot different from the commenters hereon

I just love it when Limbaugh talks about establishment Republicans with such a sneer. Good Lord, Limbaugh is the establishment. Look at the guest list to his big fat wedding. Sir Elton John singing. I mean come on. Needless to say Rush has earned his money and his influence and has every right to do what he likes...but he is not some little guy rooting for the little gal.

Limbaugh also yakked about establishment Republicans vs Miller, Angle and O'Donnell..all of whom lost their elections. There is a reason they are establishment..they are the folks who won.

I think Andrew Sullivan is out of his mind. His weird obsession with Palin and the birth of her son Trig is just proof that he is nuts.

As for Palin, well I am still not sure if she is running or if she is just trying to grab some more of that media attention she is always complaining about.

I don't think she can win. I don't think ads will change people's minds where she is concerned. There was a time when people could remake themselves, when they could find ways to control more of the narrative..but with the internet, cable TV, facebook and twitter there are so many competing voices that it is very difficult to control anything.

I'm inclined to agree with Seven Machos; as much as I'd like to think Palin can win, the polls don't support that. And unlike just about every other Republican candidate, Joe Public has an opinion on Palin one way or another.

Maybe the force of her charisma during a campaign could win people over; but I worry that 99 percent of people have already made a decision on her.

The one upside for Palin is that a lot of people have misperceptions of her, due to the misinformation campaign that's been waged against her.

Therefore, if people start sitting up and paying attention to what she's saying they may change their minds.

She took on corruption and since then a lot of her initiatives have been over turned.

I used to like Palin a lot more than I do now. My feelings for her changed when she walked away from her job..I understand why she did it..but what is the point in taking on people if you are just going to quit when things get ugly?

I do not find her down to earth so much as calculated. I thought Mitch Daniels was down to earth with his harley and his jeans..but there were people on the right who completely ignored his record and decided to dislike him because people like Lugar did like him.

That is just shallow and showy and that is what too much of Palin's following is about.

We need someone in there who knows what he or she is doing. We need someone with some kind of record of accomplishment. I just do not think Sarah Palin is that person.

One other thing on charisma, 'likeability' and so on.Australia's John Howard won four elections in a row for the conservatives. He's not charismatic. He's a short, bald guy with thick glasses. But he was seen as solid, dependable, and competent, and because of that, won a long string of elections.

Not sure being called "shrewder" means much when what you said is compared to this bit of tripe:

"I am reminded of all those Democrats who told me as fact that there was no way Obama could beat Clinton - as late as March 2008. I mean: he was a black man with a funny name who was organizing mainly on the web!"

Organized mainly on the web? Obama Inc. used the web well, but had the core organization...like Romney' folks are speaking too...in place first. It had nothing in common to Thompson youtube efforts or Palin's Facebook new media campaign.

Guess what Prof and Sullivan: an apple is red, and a fire engine is red. But an apple and fire engine are not the same, or even similar.